Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

  1. #31
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,185

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    Here's a tweet or two from Mick West, owner of metabunk, and Mike's favourite tech guy......

    He is discussing just how outraged he is that these know nothing professors and PHDs have had the audacity to use a "static linear analysis". Mick states how ridiculous this is and dismisses the analysis on the basis of his judgement.

    Attachment 67263338

    Here's an extract from a published paper in this journal here. It's one of the top journals on the planet, and the paper is written by 3 of the world's best FEA experts
    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130%28369%29323

    Inside the paper talks about how to model column removal, like the analysis that Mick says was terrible for using a static linear analysis. They are even using the exact same program as one that Mick is talking about through this study, SAP2000.

    Here's what it says re column removal and analysis.

    "1. Linear static analysis
    In linear static analysis column is removed from the location being considered and analysis is carried out for following vertical load which shall be applied downward on the structure. "

    it goes on..........

    "Steps to perform linear static analysis: Linear static analysis procedure involves the following steps
    Step-1: Build a computer model;
    Step-2: Remove the column from the model.
    Step-4: Apply static load combinations as per GSA guidelines
    Step-5: Perform static linear analysis, a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000 Step-6: Find DCR for beams and Columns. "

    So this is the opposite to what Mick West has pinned 100% of his attack up until now on. He has exposed himself as a charlatan, by publicly insisting that a universally accepted analysis technique is outragous, and getting it 100% wrong.

    I almost felt sorry doing that to him. Not quite though Mike.

    Mick West actually said (and doubled down on) that the test described in the program's own manual as "a standard analysis procedure in SAP2000" for column analysis, is "ridiculous".

    So who is right. Every paper ever published on the topic, and every expert and every program......... Or Mick West.

    Someone try to find me even one person (not even an engineer) who agrees with Mick Wst on this.
    Great. a link where one has to pay for a download and only a partial summary is available. Very informative, not.

    So gerrycan. you really believe Husley report is better than NIST.
    Why did Husley not simulate the fire behavior but held it constant.
    Why did Husley only simulate fire on two floors.?

    imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
    Explain it to us poor layman.

    Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll?
    Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  2. #32
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    09-11-19 @ 02:00 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Great. a link where one has to pay for a download and only a partial summary is available. Very informative, not.

    So gerrycan. you really believe Husley report is better than NIST.
    Why did Husley not simulate the fire behavior but held it constant.
    Why did Husley only simulate fire on two floors.?

    imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
    Explain it to us poor layman.

    Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll?
    Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.
    Alaska recreates the collapse a lot closer than NIST. No inputs from NIST, all inputs coming from Alaska. You trust the science that you can quantify and test. Recreate. If you can't do that with it, it's not science. NIST is not science. No data.

    your friend Mick has really shown himself up stating that something so obviously wrong was so outragously bad. The program tells you if an analysis is way out, it's how it works, and Mick knocked himself out within the first 10 seconds of the first round of this whole debate.

    What an absolute clown. Still will not accept that he's wrong although EVERY single opinion on the planet screams disagreement with him in plain black and white and not one agrees with him.
    Clown.

  3. #33
    Guru
    ozeco41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Moss Vale, NSW, AU
    Last Seen
    09-17-19 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,514

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    imo, the paper by Husley is an attempt to say NIST was wrong. If correct, does that prove controlled demolition. If so, why didn't the paper state such. Why so vague.
    Explain it to us poor layman.
    Mike - as all this foggy talk round in circles "debate" progresses just keep a few key points in mind:
    1) Stated simply Hulsey set two objectives which are:
    (a) Prove that fire could not cause the WTC7 collapse; AND
    (b) Prove that NIST was wrong.

    "(a)" asserts a global negative which CANNOT be proved in the setting of the UAF WTC7 project. Hulsey is WRONG. I am aware that you have already identified the fatal error. You one one of a small handful and the fatal error is being ignored in most discussion - it is an endemic problem with engineers. (For reasons we could discuss but let's not derail .... yet!!!)
    "(b)" is a mainline AE911 and Szamboti objective. It is strictly irrelevant to understanding the true event which happend on 9/11 BUT see my comment under heading "3)" later. And we are seeing the usual mental gymnastics in debate in other places.

    2) For whatever reasons of mental gymnastics Hulsey avoids the terms "CD", "explosive" et simile but uses "roundabout" language which means the same thing;
    AND
    3) It does NOT prove controlled demolition. However be aware that Hulsey is obviously writing to suit the needs of AE911 and T Szamboti. And Szamboti's strategy for recent years has been "false dichotomy" in the form of "I've proved "X" wrong - that means I am right" Utter bovine faeces. BUT AE911 will find ready acceptance among so called "truthers" of the false dichotomy "NIST is wrong - that proves we are right" Faeces of the male bovine as I said before.
    AND
    4) Gerrycan's "party line" comment about "Alaska recreates the collapse a lot closer than NIST." That is a topic in its own right BUT the "truther party line" conflates two very different clases of models or simulations. Viz (a() Visual representations; and rigorous quantifiable scientific modelling. Rigorous engineering models rarely if ever "LOOK LIKE" the real event. Rigorous quantifiable models have to deal with many factors including scale management. The NIST models obviously grossly distort deformations. Of course they do. It is the nature of such models. But truthers want something that "looks like" the real thing. And Hulsey has made sure that his models meet that criterion. Manipulation to suit the target audience??? Can't prove it...yet. But keep it in mind as "debate" progresses.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Tony Sz would be proud of you sticking up for him. Are you on his payroll?
    It is becoming increasingly clear that T Szamboti has been playing puppet master with Hulsey playing puppet. Debunkers tend to underrate Tony's successes - which successes are probably due to his persistence rather than deliberate manipulation. But recall that most debunkers still accept the second of Tony's false premises underpinning "Missing Jolt" (i.e. the nonsense of "drop to impact") And his influence in this UAF/Hulsey project has clearly created a false direction that many debunkers are already following. Matters not whether it was deliberate deviousness or simply sticking stubbornly to his false claims. Debunkers have fallen and continue to fall for Szamboti traps.
    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Seems yours still mad at Mick for getting yourself banned.
    The Moderation at Metabunk is..... "quixotic"
    Last edited by ozeco41; 09-08-19 at 04:44 AM.

  4. #34
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    09-11-19 @ 02:00 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Mike
    YouTube

  5. #35
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,185

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Is there no dynamic analysis of the simulation by Husley ?


    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  6. #36
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    09-11-19 @ 02:00 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Is there no dynamic analysis of the simulation by Husley ?


    Mike, it's in the report. Mick just made at least 7 howlers of errors that a 12 year old kid could have picked up on. Of course there's a dynamic analysis, just not the one mick is looking at.
    Dynamic Vs linear just means a curved graph Vs a straight line for material properties.

    And that video up there, that's pixels mike - that's not what a FEA prog puts out.

    NIST have pixels - Alaska has data. Which one can you check ?

  7. #37
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    78,145

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    OH MY GOD!!!


    Enough with the ****ing WTC Conspiracy Theories!!!

  8. #38
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,185

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    Mike, it's in the report. Mick just made at least 7 howlers of errors that a 12 year old kid could have picked up on. Of course there's a dynamic analysis, just not the one mick is looking at.
    Dynamic Vs linear just means a curved graph Vs a straight line for material properties.

    And that video up there, that's pixels mike - that's not what a FEA prog puts out.

    NIST have pixels - Alaska has data. Which one can you check ?
    So you have seen the Alaska data? Thought it was not going to be available for a month. So did you lie?

    Did you not notice the source of the vid in post 35?

    Interesting how the Alaska report goes out of its way not to mention CD.
    Last edited by mike2810; 09-11-19 at 01:29 AM.
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  9. #39
    Sage
    zyzygy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Flanders.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,948

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    OH MY GOD!!!


    Enough with the ****ing WTC Conspiracy Theories!!!
    Groundhog Day!
    I have sex daily, sorry dyslexia.

    Originally Posted by Mashmont
    "Because the right isn't hate-filled."

  10. #40
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    09-11-19 @ 02:00 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    So you have seen the Alaska data? Thought it was not going to be available for a month. So did you lie?

    Did you not notice the source of the vid in post 35?

    Interesting how the Alaska report goes out of its way not to mention CD.
    I noticed the source of the video yes. It's PIXELS. It would take a particular kind of moron to believe that represented FEA data.

    I haven't seen the data yet for Alaska but it will be released.

    What can you tell from your pixel video - tell me why WTC7 is all shimmering blue when it should be still.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •